Meltdown Likely Under Way At Japan Nuclear Reactor

[midas]

This arrogant view of what is after all an international ocean should not come as too much of a

surprise when you consider how they blatantly ignored requests to stop slaughtering whales.

Do they ignore requests, or decline them?

Ignored..... beyond any doubt.

And this issue is going from bad to worse............

TEPCO Knew Radiation In Seawater Is 7.5 Million Above Normal Before It Started Dumping Radioactivity In Sea On Monday

This time nobody will be blamed for not carrying the decimal comma. While a few weeks back TEPCO scrambled to lie to the public that a reading 10 million times higher than normal was really just 100,000 times above threshold, today TEPCO, whose stock hit an all time low in overnight trading, finally admitted the truth that radioactive Iodine 131 readings taken from seawater near the water intake of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant's No. 2 reactor reached 7.5 million times the legal limit. This means Godzilla is most likely very close to hatching. But it gets worse: "The sample that yielded the high reading was taken Saturday, before Tepco announced Monday it would start releasing radioactive water into the sea, and experts fear the contamination may spread well beyond Japan's shores to affect seafood overseas." In other words, as TEPCO was dumping 11,500 tons of radioactive water in the sea, it already knew, but kept away from the public, the radiation was nearly ten million times higher than legal limits. At this point we truly marvel at the stoic ability of Japanese people, and most certainly its east-coast fishermen, whose jobs are finished as nobody will want to buy any fish in the foreseeable future for fear of radioactive toxicity, to accept such lies, very often with an intent to hurt, day after day, without anger spilling over in some form of violence.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tepco-knew-radiation-seawater-75-million-above-normal-it-started-dumping-radioactivity-sea-m

[StreetCowboy]

Lets recall the fact that our planet didn't have any natural radiation but now we have various kinds of very dangerous substances which are man-made....

Further to this spectacular piece of nonsense, you may be interested to read the section on cancer risk to miners in this article

http://www.ccnr.org/...dliest.html#die

which appears to imply that radiation is as natural as - as rocks in the ground, for example.

SC

Dr Al Sears

It may be that you can measure your total exposure to radiation, and get a quantification so you can compare radiation from scans and X-rays and nuclear blasts to radiation from the natural source, but that’s where the similarities end.

It’s a totally different kind of radiation. It’s a different exposure, it’s coming from a different source, it has a different level of energy… the only thing that’s the same is the quantity. But the character of the radiation is entirely unrelated, and is something that is unnatural to you.

Who knows if standing in front of that scanner and exposing your gonads to it, or standing on the beach in Washington state, is safe or not? No one can say that it’s safe just because it’s the same quantity as a day at the beach. That’s a big presumption that there’s no evidence for.

Any level of new radiation is something you can’t know the result of.

http://www.alsearsmd...1201&L=1785&F=H

That would be slightly more convincing if there were any facts in it.

As you may have read in the link I gave, natural radiation was highlighted as a major contributor to fatality amongst miners, and alpha particles, whether they come from plutonium or radon, are similar. Gamma rays are similar; of course, the energy levels are different - to the extent that we can use gamma ray spectroscopy to identify materials remotely, but whether plutonium gamma rays have more energy than radon (sorry, I should be quoting isotope weights here) or potassium or sodium isotopes - you'll suffer more ill-health worrying about it, and there's not a lot you can do about it, so the worry will be wasted.

Any level of new radiation is something you cannot know the result of; nor old radiation. So many people die of cancer, and the background radiation dose so large for most people compared to accidental releases, that although Chernobyl, for example, may have resulted in thousands of deaths throughout Europe, the effect was not statistically discernable over the norm.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

It is impossible to tell which cigarette gave you cancer, but if you smoke one cigarette, you are believed to increase your risk of cancer. Similarly radiation. We are lucky that it is so easy to measure, and classify, and trace.

Dr SC

[Chopperboy]

Japan Dumps Toxic Water in Sea, Seeks Russia Processing Ship

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- Tokyo Electric Power Co. is pumping millions of gallons of radioactive water into the sea from its crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi station, and Japan has asked Russia to send a ship capable of processing nuclear waste.

The company known as Tepco will discharge 10,000 tons (2.6 million gallons) of water from a treatment building until 6 p.m. local time to make room to store fluids that are more highly contaminated, Hidehiko Nishiyama, Japan’s main spokesman on nuclear safety, said today. Another 1,500 tons from pits outside two reactors will be drained over five days, he said.

Japan’s government asked Russia for help processing radioactive waste from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station, and is specifically interested in the Landysh facility, used to dismantle nuclear submarines, Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Russia’s state-run Rosatom Corp., said in Moscow yesterday. Landysh is a radioactive waste treatment plant housed on a barge.

[Chopperboy]

Fishing Group Protests Fukushima Radioactive Dump as Tokyo Sales Plummet

A fishing industry group in northern Japan protested Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s decision to dump radioactive water into the sea in Fukushima, saying it may damage their fishery forever.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the presence of radioactive iodine "in one sample of fresh fish" prompted authorities to regulate the radiation in seafood for the first time.

While fishing has been forbidden within 20 kilometers (12 miles) of Fukushima Daiichi, there had been no restrictions on seafood, as there were for some vegetables and milk from certain locales. Now, the same radiation standards that apply to vegetables will apply to ocean products as well.

"The "provisional ingestion limit, equivalent to vegetables and applied to fish and shellfish, will take effect immediately," the Cabinet minister said.

[animatic]

CNN reporting

"Radiation in water rushing into sea tests millions of times over limit"

Radiation millions of times normal in water

This one is in english,

but the importance of this particular subject seems to require a relaxing of the English only links rules. I personally want info from any and all sources, no doubt native speakers or translation programs can be used, but original sources links are important too. We have a great wealth of info compiled here, and partly because many international sources are being accessed. I want this to continue.

[Chopperboy]

"The incident at Fukushima demonstrates the extraordinary safety standards and robustness of more modern nuclear power stations."

--Malcolm Grimston

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/04/nuclear.debate/index.html

Edited April 5, 2011 by Chopperboy

[midas]

"The incident at Fukushima demonstrates the extraordinary safety standards and robustness of more modern nuclear power stations."

--Malcolm Grimston

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/04/nuclear.debate/index.html

Mr Malcolm C Grimston graduated from the University of Cambridge. He taught chemistry from 1980 to 1987, and in 1987 was appointed Director of the Talks Service at the UK Atomic Energy Authority. In 1992 he joined the British Nuclear Industry Forum as Energy Issues Adviser. In 1995 Malcolm Grimston took up an appointment at Imperial College, London, as a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Environmental Technology, researching energy policy issues. In 1999 he was appointed a Senior Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, conducting an investigation into the future of civil nuclear energy. He is currently an Associate Fellow at Chatham House, and the author of numerous articles for journals etc.

I suggest everyone dump the dead fish from everywhere at his doorstep

[lannarebirth]

I remeber when I was first mate on a refrigerated container ship in service to the fishing industry in Alaska, one of the Norwegian supernumeraries told me 75% of the worlds fish were off the west coast of North America and 60% of those were off the coast of Alaska. That radioactive water thing reminded me of that.

[pedro01]

Somebody needs to step in and take the reigns away from TEPCO and possibly the Japanese government too.

[elcent]

Siemens Said to Consider a Retreat from Nuclear Power

DPA

Siemens may be rethinking its involvement in nuclear reactor projects.

Siemens, the German engineering giant, may have no room in its portfolio for nuclear projects following the Fukushima disaster, according to media reports. It would mean a loss of revenue -- and a serious reconsideration of what "sustainable energy" means.

The German engineering firm Siemens may reconsider its involvement in nuclear power, according to a report on Tuesday by the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Just two years ago the Munich-based conglomerate announced a deal with the Russian firm Rosatom to form a new venture to build up to 400 nuclear plants by 2030. Siemens planned to invest heavily in all forms of energy, from coal to renewables, but the partnership with Rosatom would help "enlarge our footprint in nuclear business," CEO Peter Löscher said at the time, because nuclear was "an essential part of a sustainable energy mix."

But the Fukushima disaster in Japan seems to have changed the corporate mood. Last week the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported plans already underway by Siemens to pursue business in a fourth major sector, called "Green City" -- after industry, energy, and health care -- to revamp its image. "Green City" would be a category for environmentally-minded projects now ranked under energy and industry, according to the paper.

The question within Siemens now is evidently how to reconcile its nuclear interests with the desire to profile itself as "green." Since Fukushima, all possibilities are on the table, according to the Süddeutsche Zeitung -- including a complete divestment from nuclear power.

The paper wouldn't name its sources, and Siemens has made no official comment. Abandoning the venture with Rosatom, however, would mean forfeiting "sizable revenue," according to a May 26 report by WirtschaftsWoche.

Sentiment in Germany has moved sharply against nuclear power in the last few weeks. Chancellor Angela Merkel was so worried about political fallout from the Fukushima disaster that she called for a sudden temporary shutdown of seven of the country's oldest nuclear plants. The move was considered a bid for votes in imminent state elections, but in that regard it may have failed. Her Christian Democrats lost heavily last week in Baden-Württemberg, and voters gave the Green Party an unprecedented boost.

msm -- with wires - http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,755184,00.html

Thank you Siemens for this consideration. One more time this company has shown that it can handle responibilities. The last I remember was when Siemens guaranteed all its' employees their jobs and income for life-time, - this in the middle of a worldwide econimic crisis. Wish more would follow their policies. Now they are considering giving up building 400 nuclear reactors.

[elcent]

We probably have soon another nuclear desaster developing in one or the other way, - Iran!!! and probably N-Korea. Just these ones appart from accidents.

[elcent]

the above(Siemens story) also shows us the trend that was set years ago, and hopefully now comes to an end. This explains the Thai stance to this issue very well. Moles are hanging around for years to save the business for their respective companies/corporations. Millions of $$$ are invoilved in that and it takes years to soften the stance and/or to secure a project. It takes someone with more phantasy than I have to figure out the bribes paid in various creative ways (I bet on that).

Edited April 5, 2011 by elcent

[elcent]

Here are two URL's plus a few excerpts. Each is put out by Thailand's government owned EGAT, which is the corp which will be bringing N to Thailand. They're both .pdf, and expectedly, have decent color graphics. They make reference to a feasibility study (FS) (by Burns and Roe Asia, Ltd. - Oct 2008 - May 2010), but of course don't say how much that study costs or what the detailed results were. Instead, it just shows as much 'glowing' (pun intended) data as possible. Obviously, the expensive FS was designed to have only one conclusion, with no objective data allowed. It would be interesting to see how that FS would turn out if it was a tad bit objective and ...in lieu of the recent N problems in Japan. Since EGAT is a Thai government Corp, it stands that Thai taxpayers indirectly paid for the FS, and are therefore allowed to see its details. No such luck. The hundreds of millions of baht has been paid, EGAT got the report it wanted, and that it.

Thailand's Nuclear Power s Plant Feasibility Study

Thai Professionals Conference (TPC 2010)

Monday, June 5, 2010

Apisit Patchimpattapong, Ph.D.

Nuclear Engineering Division

Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT)

Nuclear Energy is:

>>> reliable

>>> low and stable cost

>>> no greenhouse gases emissions

BB's note: It's almost a sad joke to still hear officials touting N as having 'no greenhouse gases'. It's like a restaurant saying, 'We don't put MSG on your beef stew, but we marinate it in arsenic sauce.'

Below is a survey conducted by EGAT (very objective, I'm sure), which shows pro and anti nuclear sentiment in Thailand. This is BEFORE the Japanese problem.

Nuclear power development - somewhere in Thailand for: 64 / against: 32

in their own province - for: 32 / against:59

In their own community - for: 24 / against: 66

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

BB: Here's the 2nd report.

URL: http://rbdweb.nstda....d/1-Nuclear.pdf

Dr. Kurujit Nakornthap

Deputy Permanent Secretary,

Ministry of Energy, Thailand

"Nuclear power has an excellent safety record"

Source: H-Holger Rogner, Head of Planning & Economic Studies Section, Department of Nuclear Energy, IAEA, 2010

"At present, Public information program to promote nuclear energy is being developed by Subcommittee on Public Information and Public Participation and EGAT's working group on Public Communications. TV/Radio ad campaigns (including use of recognized Thai personalities on talk shows, etc), mailings (e.g., with electric bills), websites, newspaper and etc are considered as the effective media tools to communicate with the public. The program contents include the benefits of providing future electrical generation i.e. economic benefits (competitive cost of electricity), reduced green house gas emissions, and greater security of supply."

BB's note; it goes on to say there will probably be incentives for the surrounding community, such as low or no costs for electcity.

BB's note: EGAT, true to form, will do their public campaign, only singing praises of nuclear. You won't hear about the drawbacks from them, except as a foil to show there can be no problems - with newer technology.

Thanks for the links.

The content's not even close to feasibility study. Just polemic, no data. This is probably a sponsored propaganda by the nuclear lobby, nothing else (some are lurking here?

Edited April 5, 2011 by elcent

[JulianLS]

Whoa.... some pretty heavy stuff since I checked in a day ago....

Elcent.... -5 No natural radiation??? <deleted>??? Dohhhhhhhhhhhh.... Enough said...

SC.... +2 (but recovering from negative score after the "beyond the design spec' comment.....)

Any chance of some neutral or objective comments on this thread nowadays?

[Lopburi99]

This has probably been mentioned before somewhere in the 105 pages. Consider the ramifications of years of indirect nuclear exposure, even at extremely low levels, and/or subtle contamination negative affect on human reproductive cells which are already somewhat fragile. The Japanese tend to marry largely amongst themselves I believe. Connect the dots. What could the long term possibly hold in store for the Japanese?

Edited April 5, 2011 by Lopburi99

[brahmburgers]

We probably have soon another nuclear desaster developing in one or the other way, - Iran!!! and probably N-Korea. Just these ones appart from accidents.

Nuclear disasters will happen. China has the most N reactors, with many more planned. The countries you mentioned, plus China (and others) are and will be much less transparent than Japan - in how they will deal with future N problems.

Even Russia. Remember how long it took to even admit there was a sinking of their nuclear powered sub, the Kursk? Even then, they kept trying to keep the genie in the bottle, by saying it was rammed by a US sub, and several other 'carards' (red herrings) - while all the while trying to downplay and dismiss there was a tragedy unfolding. It wasn't until over a week later that it even allowed assistance from outsiders who had better functioning emergency equipment than they had.

[StreetCowboy]

This has probably been mentioned before somewhere in the 105 pages. Consider the ramifications of years of indirect nuclear exposure, even at extremely low levels, and/or subtle contamination negative affect on human reproductive cells which are already somewhat fragile. The Japanese tend to marry largely amongst themselves I believe. Connect the dots. What could the long term possibly hold in store for the Japanese?

You would need to ask the Japanese, who have been living with the legacy of large-scale nuclear release experiments since 1945.

SC

[Lopburi99]

Good point SC.

[animatic]

This has probably been mentioned before somewhere in the 105 pages. Consider the ramifications of years of indirect nuclear exposure, even at extremely low levels, and/or subtle contamination negative affect on human reproductive cells which are already somewhat fragile. The Japanese tend to marry largely amongst themselves I believe. Connect the dots. What could the long term possibly hold in store for the Japanese?

You would need to ask the Japanese, who have been living with the legacy of large-scale nuclear release experiments since 1945.

SC

And ask the islanders down wind from Bikini atol and the other open air test sites.

It is also though that the crew of as film which included Susan Hayward, Agnes Morehead and John Wayne were also working at a site down wind from earlier Nevada USA open air testing, and much or most of that crew died later from very similar cancers, a huge cluster within those actors and crew, and the town of St George also, and the one commonality is they all worked that same film location hundreds of miles down wind a few years after 50's era open air nuclear blasts .

It would appear that the legacy of this Japan disaster is only just getting a toehold...

Edited April 6, 2011 by animatic

[JetsetBkk]

And ask the islanders down wind from Bikini atol and the other open air test sites.

It is also though that the crew of as film which included Susan Hayward, Agnes Morehead and John Wayne were also working at a site down wind from earlier Nevada USA open air testing, and much or most of that crew died later from very similar cancers, a huge cluster within those actors and crew, and the town of St George also, and the one commonality is they all worked that same film location hundreds of miles down wind a few years after 50's era open air nuclear blasts .

It would appear that the legacy of this Japan disaster is only just getting a toehold...

It would appear that you are implying that the type/amount of radiation from the nuclear tests in Nevada is the same as the type/amount of radiation from the Fukushima incident.

Have you now joined the scaremongers?

[animatic]

And ask the islanders down wind from Bikini atol and the other open air test sites.

It is also though that the crew of as film which included Susan Hayward, Agnes Morehead and John Wayne were also working at a site down wind from earlier Nevada USA open air testing, and much or most of that crew died later from very similar cancers, a huge cluster within those actors and crew, and the town of St George also, and the one commonality is they all worked that same film location hundreds of miles down wind a few years after 50's era open air nuclear blasts .

It would appear that the legacy of this Japan disaster is only just getting a toehold...

It would appear that you are implying that the type/amount of radiation from the nuclear tests in Nevada is the same as the type/amount of radiation from the Fukushima incident.

Have you now joined the scaremongers?

Have you joined the apologists?

Consider that the amount of plutonium needed to kill is invisible,

yes it is not hard to be scared by the lack of clarity in the japanese salvage of face efforts here. There is plutonium involved.

We do not at present know what exactly is being released and will not for some time know of it's affects on the locals and the world food chain via the sea currents. The point is we may not know the full extent of the damage for years or decades, but it likely will be staggering in the end.

Edited April 6, 2011 by animatic

[midas]

And ask the islanders down wind from Bikini atol and the other open air test sites.

It is also though that the crew of as film which included Susan Hayward, Agnes Morehead and John Wayne were also working at a site down wind from earlier Nevada USA open air testing, and much or most of that crew died later from very similar cancers, a huge cluster within those actors and crew, and the town of St George also, and the one commonality is they all worked that same film location hundreds of miles down wind a few years after 50's era open air nuclear blasts .

It would appear that the legacy of this Japan disaster is only just getting a toehold...

It would appear that you are implying that the type/amount of radiation from the nuclear tests in Nevada is the same as the type/amount of radiation from the Fukushima incident.

Have you now joined the scaremongers?

Have you joined the apologists?

Consider that the amount of plutonium needed to kill is invisible,

yes it is not hard to be scared by the lack of clarity in the japanese salvage of face efforts here. There is plutonium involved.

We do not at present know what exactly is being released and will not for some time know of it's affects on the locals and the world food chain via the sea currents. The point is we may not know the full extent of the damage for years or decades, but it likely will be staggering in the end.

oh yes Jetset wants you to take the red pill ........he keeps posting

stuff from " The Register " .....enough said

Edited April 6, 2011 by midas

[DanaDeLuxe]

A Tokyo Electrical Power Company worker talks about the lack of controls on his company's nuclear power plants, its corporate culture of silence and TEPCO's reaction to the catastrophe.

on Spiegel online in ENGLISH:

Spiegel International

"A Tokyo Electrical Power Company (TEPCO) worker has spoken out over the firm's power plant control failures and culture of silence. This text is based on a phone interview conducted in Japanese. Because he distrusts the Japanese media, the TEPCO employee had spoken to a blogger, who then passed the story on to SPIEGEL. The magazine knows which department the employee works in and has verified his identity."

"If my colleagues knew I was speaking with the press, they would despise me for it. My boss would certainly dismiss me. Therefore, I must remain anonymous.

I have worked for TEPCO for a long time, and always considered it to be a good company. But now when I go to work, I see everywhere -- on trains, on the streets -- the headlines on the illuminated adverts for magazines: "TEPCO is bad, bad, bad." That rankles because I know how much criticism it really deserves. It is time to speak out. In my opinion, TEPCO bears responsibility for the accident in Fukushima, but the state is just as guilty."

[...]

"Employees from across the company are now being sent to Fukushima, even if they do not belong to the nuclear division. They are assistants who are trying to reconnect power to the plant. Many are working in radioactive environments for the first time, with protective clothing and a breathing mask. Often there's something mentioned about them on the intranet.

Until recently, I didn't know anyone personally who had to go there, it was always acquaintances of friends. But this week, a friend of mine was sent there. He told me that he had not volunteered, that it was an order. He has no idea what he'll be doing there."

End of quote

They seem to be using workers from other than the nuclear divisions of Tepco Industries now in cleaning up the mess. Imagine this would happen in a country where is is not so easy to just 'order' people to risk and lose (?) their lives for the company ...

[elcent]

The earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from space, similar to a

steady drizzle of rain. Charged particles from the sun and stars interact with the earth's atmosphere and

magnetic field to produce a shower of radiation, typically beta and gamma radiation. The dose from

cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world due to differences in elevation and to the effects

of the earth's magnetic field.

this from a govt source made in 1987, Very scientific, detailed and informative. NOT --- Just for (ENGLISH)teachers ...

http://www.nrc.gov/r...teachers/06.pdf

Yes, there's some very tiny natural radiation which is nothing compared to the bold and concentrated deadly threats created by humans, especially plutonium.

Although I'm not clear about the man-made radiation being considered as natural and since when, the first atomic bomb, the tests before , the second bomb, the tests on humans (in the States where thousands had bee exposed to very high radiation for research), the under water tests ... ????? How many %%% are these man-made radiations adding to the so called natural radiation? According to IAEA, the Chernobyl accident and radiation was converted to + 2% of natural radiation as you can find from the link below. It was found out that this figure is wrong though.

Here a good read and details, inclusive successful treatments -

http://www.sott.net/...uclear-Meltdown

Edited April 6, 2011 by elcent

[elcent]

In meanwhile the American propaganda machinery has reached Germany with critics because of their exit of nuclear power. German Angst (or is it wisdom, knowledge and carefulness?). Can't post a link here. It's in German. It's from a sooth sayer Robert Peter Gale. US-Onkologe(currently in Japan) He's making very outdated statements and comparsions, like comparing with oil and coal. - He missed the point that Germany is far further already and soon to import the energy equal to emergy poduced by 100 nuke power plants and with only a loss of 3% per 1000km transport.

What are the motives of his ballaver anyway?

America thinks it needs to accelarate nuclear power plants build up to be able to cover their own cost for the next 50 - 150 years for decomission their old ones. This is the American philosphy. Sorry this is a bad bad one. Another one could be that they seek a takeover from Siemens and to get the 400 planned plants for them. LOL.

This is an image from Semipalatinsk, Kasachstan where the Russian tested 500 nuclear bombs. The radiation released from that time was added to natural radiation.

[elcent]

A Tokyo Electrical Power Company (TEPCO) worker has spoken out over the firm's power plant control failures and culture of silence. This text is based on a phone interview conducted in Japanese. Because he distrusts the Japanese media, the TEPCO employee had spoken to a blogger, who then passed the story on to SPIEGEL. The magazine knows which department the employee works in and has verified his identity.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,755270,00.html

[midas]

A Tokyo Electrical Power Company (TEPCO) worker has spoken out over the firm's power plant control failures and culture of silence. This text is based on a phone interview conducted in Japanese. Because he distrusts the Japanese media, the TEPCO employee had spoken to a blogger, who then passed the story on to SPIEGEL. The magazine knows which department the employee works in and has verified his identity.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,755270,00.html

U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant

" United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html?_r=3&ref=global-home

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

Have you now joined the scaremongers?

<snip>

we may not know the full extent of the damage for years or decades, but it likely will be staggering in the end.

A simple "Yes" would have sufficed.

[JetsetBkk]

oh yes Jetset wants you to take the red pill ........he keeps posting

stuff from " The Register " .....enough said

Because it's one of the few techy web sites that hasn't jumped on the "we're all doomed" bandwagon.

[StreetCowboy]

<snip>

Have you now joined the scaremongers?

<snip>

we may not know the full extent of the damage for years or decades, but it likely will be staggering in the end.

A simple "Yes" would have sufficed.

But not so spooky.

Talk about 'staggering in the end' - sounds like Saturday night!

We sometimes don't actually know the full extent of the damage from a perfectly ordinary days' sunbathing until years after, and sometimes, for an individual, that can be staggering. It just goes to show the perils of nuclear fusion!

People easily over-estimate and talk up risks that they expect other people to control, while under-estimating risks that it is their own responsibility to control. And similarly, risks from which they derive no benefit, compared to risks from activities that they themselves benefit from or enjoy.

Regardless of my own opinion on global warming (or nuclear power) I would not like to see France, or Japan, or the USA, or anywhere else condemned to the dark.

We are lucky in Scotland to have a track record of safe nuclear power, hydro-electric resources, good wind (oo err missus), a variety of fossil fuels and credible wave energy resources. Many other countries do not have such an embarassment of riches...

SC